"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

I bet all the Grand Campaign DLC's will come in a package. And Afrika Corps will be an expansion. It doesn't make sense to remain restricted to PC. What are the plans regarding BA's expansions? I suppose they are going to release it also for the other platforms, Mac, iPad and Android. The difference will be the time of release. PC will be first, and the other platforms will have the "ironed" version, if any patch will be needed at all.

"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman

Playing Panzer Corps! Boom, boom, boom! Big deal! Decisive victories that don't alter any outcome. A decisive victory, more "bad news", another battle, another decisive victory, more bad news, another decisive victory, another battle. Pointless. A waste of time. Read a history book!

RPKUPK his complaining about DLC being historical. But that was what most people were asking in the forums, a more historical approach for the path campaign. Most didn't want the alternative. A demand for more alternative scenarios campaign is only appearing in the last months.

Thank you, Lord! I hope you guys request a back-engineering of Panzer Corps to reward the faithful that have been buying the expansion campaigns---either as a fix or add-on scenarios for purchase. It's beyond me that winning long strings of decisive victories results in the same outcome as a long string of decisive defeats. Just plain illogical. A simulation should allow for examining factors important to a historical path yet allow for alternate outcomes. Otherwise, like I said, go read a history book. Please add a historical path button and an alternate outcome button when a campaign opens. Please fix the problem of unit factors that remain unchanged after many medals and awards. Change the unit characteristic unit factors, please. Consider allowing for exchange of units during campaign battle---that is, units in reserve! Or, add a random occasional reinforcement! Like in real battle. Everything need not be scripted. This allows for MORE FUN and interest as each replay game can be different rather than a rote exercise in history!

OP: It's beyond me that winning long strings of decisive victories results in the same outcome as a long string of decisive defeats.

I have all the expansions, but haven't played them, of course. Assuming OP is correct on the above quote - and no one says he's not - this sounds ridiculous. Maybe the issue has come up in another thread? I assume the player is at least rewarded in some way for his efforts with more units, points, etc? Sorry I am clueless, but want to see what I am getting into before devoting the time to a campaign. Thanks

That's the point rosseau--I have played all the expansion campaigns ('39--'44). Yes, your core units gain in strength and capabilities which leads to the potential for more victories. But without fail, after decisive victories, where one eliminates every enemy unit(!)--successfully breaking out of Stalingrad, crushing the Russians at Kursk, etc.--you get more bad news and get shunted on to the next historical calamity. Win there and the same thing. You end up with powerful upgraded very capable core units (level 15 Tiger IIs, level 15 Me-262s) that lose strategically no matter what. Supposedly this is going to change with the upcoming Afrika Korps expansion. I have requested that they issue a fix or back-engineer to allow for alternate outcomes.

Yes, a little strategic chrome would be nice. I bought the expansions for the extra scenarios, and quite wonderful they can be edited, too. So don't want to be too hard on 'em - it's a great system - and will only get better with constructive input.

Yes, a little strategic chrome would be nice. I bought the expansions for the extra scenarios, and quite wonderful they can be edited, too. So don't want to be too hard on 'em - it's a great system - and will only get better with constructive input.

I have to agree a bit with RPKUPK a bit. I've very much enjoyed the '39-'44 DLC but I have to admit that I'm wondering if I'm going to be getting '45. DLC '44 was a grind but it was a fun grind with the new units, King Tiger and Me-262 to make use of. Even so, the last few scenarios were a grind against wave upon wave of Soviet units. Definitely historical but a bit depressing. If DLC '45 is the same I'll give it a pass. There are no new units that could come on board in DLC '45 (Maus?) that could give you an edge and if it follows DLC '42-'45 you do your best but in the end all your decisive victories are for naught and your core is wiped out and your country falls (hmmmm, somewhat like the ending of Das Boat). Again, definitely historical but Fun? Hmmmmm? Perhaps if they tailor DLC '45 like Africa Corps and give the option that if you pull off key decisive victories you can manage a peace with the Soviets I'll give it a go.

I think the Panzer Corps game designers have just about everyone confused. Looking at the game you have several dozen units--panzers, infantry, artillery, etc., a PLATOON sized unit , maybe an understrength kampfgruppe. Yet, the playing map--which the manual doesn't define in miles or km (?) represents maybe 30 to 50 miles, quite an expanse for a platoon, a battalion let alone three motorized divisions of a panzer corps. Then, each battle represents a significant STRATEGIC event--NOT an operational one--the capture of Warsaw, of Paris, of Moscow, the breakout from Stalingrad, from Korsun, the complete annihilation of the Bagration offensive. If your a good soldier you have long strings of decisive victories--your core units increase in number, strength, and experience--all FOR NAUGHT. Each battle is followed by more bad news, then more "victories"--most of the time completely annihilating the enemy! Just doesn't make sense. Yes, a wonderful fascinating battle system, but a badly badly flawed game design. I guess a lot of novice players remain mesmerized by the tactical aspects of the game and play on . I am not planning to buy DLC'45 either. Why did I buy '39--'44? Fascinated at first, but I was dumb eventually. Now I see they are all a waste of time--completely illogical to win decisive victory after another, build up core units, capture core units, build them up (medal and awards) increase their capabilities just to be sent to the next battle that is then won decisively and yet receive more bad news. I don't get it. All confusing!

So we do offer a mix of both flavours, a more historical approach in the Grand Campaign DLC`s and a good old classic mix of historic and alternative historical approach in the bigger Afrika, Allied and possible Pacific expansions.

Both in the amount of and high scores we got from professional reviewers, and even mainstream attention that for a small Indie production like Panzer Corps is very rare, but more importantly the positive reactions from players and fans, this combined with the splendid sale figures I would dare to call the Panzer Corps series a hit so far.

But not a classic yet as we still need to offer more content, as we have planned, and keep on improving the game, game features and AI, exactly what we are doing in the background.

Everybody is entitled to it`s own opinion, some just don`t like the game or will never even want to try it.

I think it was a wise decision to keep the historical path with this game regardless of battle outcomes. The scope of the ETO is so vast that the number of what-if scenarios can branch out into a spider's web of possibilities. Then the arguments would be about what is the next logical scenario when an ahistorical outcome is achieved. Whats next if the Germans throw the Allies out of Italy? and so on.

Not that I don't see your point but that is not the reason I play this game. This game is a simple test of how you do against history. Thats all.

I think it was a wise decision to keep the historical path with this game regardless of battle outcomes. The scope of the ETO is so vast that the number of what-if scenarios can branch out into a spider's web of possibilities. Then the arguments would be about what is the next logical scenario when an ahistorical outcome is achieved. Whats next if the Germans throw the Allies out of Italy? and so on.

Not that I don't see your point but that is not the reason I play this game. This game is a simple test of how you do against history. Thats all.

I too share Agent Smart's opinion. I can see the arguments coming why it was used a certain what-if scenario instead of others. Besides it was clearly stated in the forums that the DLC would have a historical approach. I don't know why RPKUPK is confused.

All in all I do agree with what you are saying, up to DLC '45 that is.

Max 86 stated:"This game is a simple test of how you do against history." Now while you do have the ability to do that up to 1945, unless there is an alternate ending based upon performance the BEST you can do is repeat history and loose. If we follow the previous DLC's no matter what you do in DLC 1945, your core and homeland are destroyed. Historical yes, fun, not so much. If you really want to give the feel of 1945 eliminate all prestige gains, period. THAT should give a good feel for Germany 1945. You just watch your core wither away and die.

I mean even Scrouge changed when he had a chance to affect the ending :-)